The Mad Englishwoman

Welcome the new President?

Oh dear. Congratulations to Senator Obama, or maybe I should say Senator Obama's original backers (whoever they might be - nobody seems to know who they are). Everyody's talking about change and things changing in America. How would that be? They elected Obama not despite his colour but because of it, which I suppose is something (I understand that Obama polled something like 90% of the black vote and a lot of those were first time voters so they registered just so they could vote for Obama) but the majority of Americans (the female 50%+) are still unrepresented in the White House. Somebody on the TV this morning was saying that it's a clear signal to young people that they too can grow up to be President. Not if they are female they can't.

A lot of my American friends are celebrating this result. I don't think they have anything to celebrate. I don't think any of us have anything to celebrate. Except the Wall Street types who seem to think that Obama will be a push-over and they can get back to their sneaky racketeering ways - hence the rise in the FTSE, Dow Jones etc. Except maybe the Russians, who have got an inexperienced adversary in the White House, instead of somebody who probably has at least half a clue what he's up against. Except Al Qaeda who will be getting away with goodness knows what because Obama's committed to re-defining what "job done" in Iraq means.

Senator McCain apologised for losing the election and said it was his fault. It wasn't his fault. It's the current incumbent of the White House's fault the election went to the Democrats. It probably would have done anyway just because of Bush rather than for any merit the candidates may or may not have had. People are likening the election win to the Kennedy years. I think they are deluding themselves. Kennedy might have been good but he wasn't that good, what he had was potential. What Obama has is potential. Let's hope his Presidency doesn't end the same way as Kennedy's.

Date posted: 05 Nov 2008

The politics of envy

There's a debate on about whether people who have diseases for which the NHS can't/won't fund drugs that might cure them or at least prolong their life should be allowed to pay for medications not available on the NHS and continue to get NHS treatment for their illness.

The government has, until recently, decided that they shouldn't and that if you pay for medication not provided on the NHS then you should have to pay for all of your treatment from then on. Now they have announced a review and plans to allow people to pay for the medication - if they pay for the costs associated with any extra facilities that then need to be made available (scans and such like).

This morning on the news they had a woman from the Unison trade union saying that top-ups shouldn't be allowed because it disadvantaged "poorer people" Who cares? I don't. I think I count as "poorer people" in this situation. When some drugs can cost as much as £3,000 per treatment I won't be paying for them (though of course I hope never to be in a situation where this might be necessary). That doesn't mean that I don't want other people to have them. If they can afford to do that and it's going to help them, then good luck to them, I don't have a problem with that. Clearly some people do. It's envy.

Yesterday on my way to work I followed along behind an Aston Martin DB9 with personal plates. Nice car. I wouldn't mind one of those (though I doubt they are very practical for going to the supermarket for the weekly shop). I can't afford one. I drive a Ford. It's fine, does what I want it to do, gets me from A to B reliably. I don't want to stop other people owning fancy cars, but that's essentially what the anti- self payment people are saying. "I can't afford it, so you shouldn't be allowed to have it either".

Date posted: 04 Nov 2008

A Nation of Cowards

Well, that's what it seems we have turned into in the UK. We just let governments and "authorities" walk all over us and do nothing and say nothing. There's a point where being patient and tolerant turns into being trampled all over by anybody who wants to because we are too gutless to stick our necks out stand up and shout "This is WRONG! STOP IT NOW!".

Well, I've just about had enough of all sorts of things so I'm starting a campaign. I'm saying "Enough is Enough" because too many people in too many places are buggering about with my country, with my language, with my culture. I've had enough. I may be a lone voice crying in the wilderness but I'm going to start shouting anyway.

As a start I am complaining about:

Local Councils using anti-terrorism laws to spy on people's rubbish. I'm also complaining about the people who get accused of littering (even though they didn't do it) who don't put up a fight but just pay the fine. How dare they?! If they didn't leave their rubbish where the council says then they have no business paying the fine. Have they lost their senses? Have they no guts? Unless the council can prove that they left their rubbish in the wrong place at the wrong time then the council can take their fine and their spying, sneaking activities and shove them somewhere it hurts. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If enough people stood up to the council and said "I didn't do it, if you want money sue me" the councils would soon stop being so stupid, because they can't afford to take lots of people to court. I pay the council's wages so I want to know how come they can waste so much time on hounding people over rubbish when there are pavements that need mending, all the public toilets are closed, and people who need a home help but can't get one. In the meantime, lets amend the legislation to stop the councils snooping.
People who want me to change my religion to theirs. Any people who want to change my religion to theirs, regardless of what their religion is. If their religion faith was so fantastic, so right, then everybody would follow it anyway. Except of course that's not going to happen. We have to remember that most religions are interpreted and defined by men. Holy books aren't the "Word of God" but some man's interpretation or translation of what he thinks the "Word of God" ought to be. When I say "man" that's what I mean, men. This is one situation when men means men and not humankind. I don't care what methods the would-be converters use, whether dropping leaflets through my letter box or trying to blow me up, I'm not converting. In any case, a "religion" which seeks to convert people, or promote its message by using violence isn't a religion but a gang and I want no part of it.
People who keep mucking about with my language and telling me I what words I can and can't say and when I can and (especially) can't say them. Blow that for a game of soldiers. I realise that some words in some context might be offensive to some people. That's OK you don't say them because it's rude, like wishing Jewish people a "Happy Easter". Unless of course you really want to upset somebody. But the latest thing is that we aren't allowed to use certain Latin abbreviations and phrases because they are "elitist" and people don't understand them. Now that's what I call patronising offensive rubbish. I work part of the week with kids aged between 14 and 16 who are classed as "low achievers". They are not academically the brightest buttons in the box though they are lovely people. Those kids use Latin abbreviations and phrases all the time! How is me telling them they are too stupid to use them going to help their self esteem? Help them develop their language skills? Help them get to grips with their culture? I would never dream of saying to anybody that they shouldn't participate fully in the linguistic culture that makes up one of the richest languages on the planet. My students understand what e.g. means, they know the difference between that and i.e. they use etc. on a regular basis. They know what NB means. They possibly don't know they are using Latin, but if they understand and use it then so can anybody. Some of the students have English as a second language - maybe I should only simplify my use of language for them. But surely that's racist? In the meantime the dumbing down brigade are getting it all their own way.
People who think that elites and elitism are "wrong". If elites are wrong we don't need BBC Sports Personality of the Year to celebrate the achievement of the sporting elite of this country. After all, any idiot can drive Lewis Hamilton's car, maybe instead of Paula Radcliffe in the 2012 Olympics I'll have a go. How about that for an idea? We can recruit the England Soccer team from the local park a couple of days before the next World Cup qualifying match and everything will be fine because quite clearly everybody has to be treated as if they were equal. Listen, listen very, very, carefully, everybody is not equal and they aren't supposed to be. I thought we were supposed to encourage and promote diversity, clearly not in this case. By lowering our expectations and standards we aren't making more people feel included, we are making the average level of attainment lower; the midpoint is going down, not up. People have nothing to aspire to apart from getting as much money as possible for the least possible effort. Forget training for a job and working hard to achieve something that you can be proud of, just go on some reality TV show and get lots of money for being a talentless layabout.
People who are so terrified of discriminating against some imagined minority that they discriminate against everybody else. Somebody suggested to me that lining children up in a classroom alternating boys and girls somehow infringes their "human rights". Their what? I can't even begin to imagine what that's all about. Lining kids up, in any order, is certainly a matter of human rights; the teacher's human right to be allowed to do their job, control their class and impose some order and discipline so that all the pupils can learn and develop and grow to their full potential. It affects the human rights of every pupil in the class, who must be allowed to grow and develop and learn without the threat of disruption. Under some circumstances it may be necessary to line kids up in a certain order, under all circumstances it is necessary for a teacher to have control of the class. I suppose what they ought to do is just say "off you go" and let the kids sort themselves out. Oh but of course that would infringe the human rights of the little kid who gets trampled in the rush to the door, or the slower kid who is still putting their things away when everybody else has gone, or the biggest kid who is always out or the room first because they won't have the opportunity to experience what it's like to be last.

In a minute I have to go and do something housetrained and domestic that doesn't infringe anybody else's human rights and isn't elitist (unless owning plates is somehow elitist) but the washing up must be done. I haven't finished ranting as yet. There's lots more, but in fact, what really, really gets me mad isn't the nutcases who come up with these stupid ideas, it's all the people who are too scared (or too lazy) to stand up and say "enough is enough". It's time somebody started fighting back. I'm fighting back. Watch this space.

Date posted: 03 Nov 2008

Life goes on

I was at my cousin Lizzie's funeral yesterday. Not a bad day, as things go. Since my cousin died I have been thinking back remembering some of the things we did as children. I can remember her right back to when I was about 4 years old. They came to visit and I remember being quite fed up because I was sent to bed and she wasn't. When I was a bit older we used to go to Southend, where my aunt and uncle lived, on the bus. Simple trip since the bus passed the end of our road and went all the way to Southend and no changes. It was a relatively cheap day out at the seaside I suppose. Another time we went as a family to visit and my uncle took us all out for a walk somewhere, no idea where, but there were fields and fields of peas and we walked for what seemed like miles, munching on freshly picked peas as we went. That was a good day. I remember Lizzie and Sue were there then. Later on we used to see something of Pete, Lizzie's older brother, and his family but Lizzie was married and busy with her own family then. That's the way it goes. Somehow the world seems a different, slightly worse, place today than it did before Lizzie left it. There's a difference between "we will get together sometime soon"and knowing that chance of that has gone forever.

I have included a link in the side bar to what we refer to as "Lizzie's charity" Lizzie was a very positive life force, and the people whose lives she touched are the better for it, no doubt about that. Her life wasn't what you would conventionally call "easy" but she lived it and she lived it well. The injuries she received in her accident in 1993 probably contributed to her untimely death, but she herself said she wouldn't go back. Lizzie was a great believer in moving on, and she certainly did that. Of course she left a lot of people saddened by her passing; a lot of people rocked back on their heels and wishing they had said or done something before, while they still had the chance. Lots of people loved her, lots of people admired her and she will never be replaced, but her legacy lives on in the work she did and in her family, partner children and grandchildren. Talking to one of her sons yesterday I could see Lizzie in him, not in looks but in attitude. That's the bit of Lizzie that will go on through the generations and out into the wider world through TBPI and the people who support her work in that. Our loss is the world's loss, but we have all gained by knowing Lizzie.

So, if you thinking that you should phone, or arrange to meet, or write to somebody you haven't seen for ages do it now. You never know. Do it in tribute to a lovely lady, and because you can, because it's not, now, too late but tomorrow it might be.

Date posted: 24 Oct 2008

Families - all different

I had a phone call from my mother tonight. That in itself is odd, so as soon as I heard her voice I knew it wasn't good news. She seldom phones us and never at mealtimes unless it's an emergency. That's not to say that we never talk on the phone I phone her practically every night at around her bedtime.

What Mum wanted was to ask if I had a phone number for one of my cousins. His sister died yesterday and his other sister was trying to get in touch with him and didn't have his phone number. While I'm sad at the loss of my cousin, I can't say we were very close. It's a shock of course, she wasn't much older than me, maybe 5 years or so, but but we haven't seen each other apart from weddings and funerals since we were children. What does depress me is that my cousins, brother and sisters, didn't keep in better touch with each other and didn't manage to get along better. I can't imagine not having contact with my sister. We don't see each other very often since we live at opposite ends of England (I'm in the south-east and she's in the north-west) but we keep in touch by email and phone and we get together when we can. I guess that's just how we are.

You hear stories of extended families who still all live in the same street or district and who see each other every day. Our extended family isn't like that any more, it has scattered. We started off all living in the same area of North London and now none of us lives there. Quite a few in Hertfordshire and East Anglia, but now also in Sussex, Hampshire, Cornwall, Lincolnshire, Staffordshire, Lancashire, Spain, Ireland and Australia. I somehow doubt we are much different from any other 20th century family really, but gone are the days when we could walk from our house to visit our grandparents or any of our aunts and uncles.

So while I am sorry about the loss of my cousin, I suppose what I am mourning is the loss of that extended family and how easy it is for people become estranged from each other.

Date posted: 17 Oct 2008

And finally....

I finally managed to vote for somebody who got elected (see previous post). I checked the results of the election and there it was, the person I voted for actually won. That's good. Different too!

Date posted: 17 Oct 2008

Penalised for being unlucky?

A sad story on our local news last night about a couple whose daughter was killed in a car crash. Apparently she and her sister were in a car being driven by a friend when he lost control and hit a wall. One daughter was seriously injured but the other was killed. A complete disaster for the whole family. The driver of the car was sentenced yesterday. Clearly the parents of the girl wanted some severe penalty for the driver. They didn't get it. A good thing too.

As far as I can make out it was a simple accident. He misjudged the road, misjudged how wet it was and lost control on a bend. He was unlucky. His passengers were really unlucky, but he didn't actually do much wrong. It could easily have been any one of us. A moment's inattention and bang! The driver might have been talking to his passengers and had his attention distracted, he might have sneezed, he might have been pushing things a bit to show off to his passengers, who can really tell? It doesn't appear that he was drunk or drugged, he just made a simple mistake. Who hasn't?

I sympathise with the family of the girls involved but saying he got off lightly is a nonsense. The driver was punished for what he did wrong. He didn't do much wrong so he didn't deserve a harsh punishment. There's no suggestion that the driver intended to cause harm to anybody. I'm sure that if the police had been able to charge him with anything more than careless driving they would have. The consequences of his error are dreadful but it was still only a small error.

The driver's lucky that he had his accident before this new law came out. Apparently there's a new offence of causing death by careless driving. Huh? So you aren't being punished any more for what you did (or didn't) do, but you can now be punished for being unlucky.

Imagine the situation. Driver A is driving along maybe 5mph above a sensible speed for the road, doesn't know the road well, misjudges a bend and crashes into a wall. Now if that's all that happens then the driver gets busted for careless driving and that's it The driver might get a few penalty points, a hefty fine, and will no doubt have to pay more insurance. Now, suppose there's somebody standing by that wall and they get killed when the car hits it? The police will then have to charge the driver with a more serious offence simply because somebody else was standing in the wrong place. Unlucky. Obviously unlucky for the person who got squished but also unlucky for the driver, who still hasn't done much wrong. The cause of the accident was exactly the same, even though the effects were much more serious. Given the more serious effects then we are probably talking about losing licences, more fines, possibly a prison sentence. It makes no sense to have different punishments for the same mistake depending on the effect it has.

We have all made silly mistakes and for most of us, most of the time, we get away with it. For example, suppose a parent leaves a stair gate not latched properly. It's a simple mistake. If the child who might get through it doesn't go that way before the mistake is discovered then that's fine. If the child happens to go through that way and falls downstairs then it's a serious matter, possibly tragic, but the basic error is exactly the same regardless of the consequences. In one case it's all forgotten about within a couple of hours (apart from the mental note to check more carefully next time) in the other it will never be forgotten and probably never forgiven either.

We cannot punish people more severely just because the effect of what they have done is serious. The punishment must fit the crime, not the effects of the crime.

Date posted: 16 Oct 2008

Happy Returns

No. 2 son has been away on a school trip this week. Him and almost all of his year at school. They have been in France, not very far from Calais but still quite a distance. He had a fantastic time, which we knew he would if he managed not to kill himself. No. 2 son is diabetic and this was the first time he's been completely responsible for all his own medication (well almost completely responsible his head of year and form tutor both went on the trip and nagged him). He did very well and came home in one piece, though I'm not sure how the three other boys he was sharing with coped with having him around all the time.

When he left he was wearing a grey t-shirt under a red and grey stripy jumper and a pair of navy blue jogging bottoms. When he came back he was wearing the same jogging bottoms (now navy blue and mud coloured), the same jumper and a blue t-shirt. When he unpacked his bag I noticed that he seems to have changed his socks and his underpants at least twice but only 1 of the t-shirts he took with him was dirty (if you discount the one he was wearing when he left, which apparently became his pajama top). Whatever, the whole lot are now in the washing machine.

They did lots of interesting and fun things on the trip. I phoned him or he phoned me every night. The conversation on his last night went as follows:

Me: Hello

Him: Hello. What did you want?

Me: Just checking that you are OK.

Him: I'm OK

Me: That's fine then. Good night.

Him: Good night

End of conversation. Of course since he got home he's hardly stopped talking, but is now heading for bed as it's already past his bedtime of 9pm. No. 2 son came back a changed boy, in a nice way. he seems a bit more mature, a bit more grown up. He's certainly more confident and a bit more independent. That's good.

I have to give a huge vote of thanks to all the staff who went on the trip. I certainly wouldn't want to spend a whole week surrounded by 120 12 year old boys. But they managed it and came back looking remarkably serene. It made me think though. We just entrusted our son's life to people we hardly know because we trust them. We trust them because they are teachers. We wouldn't do that with any other group of people.

We had several lots of "second thoughts" about the whole trip but we don't want to make him different because of the diabetes and his brother did pretty much the same trip when he was in year 8 so we couldn't not let him go. Just a week or so before No. 2 son left I had a conversation with a friend (who didn't at that time know about the trip). She claims that she has never let her 12 year old son go more than an hour's travelling time away from her. Never. She worries about him, she worries that something might happen. He's at no more risk of something happening to him 2 hours or 3 hours away than he is standing right beside her. He could step out of his front gate and get hit by a lorry. They live in America so he could get shot while he's at school. It happens. What we can't do is let our fears (can we say paranoia?) get in the way of our children's development into sensible self-reliant adults. If they are never exposed to any risks they never learn to assess risk, they never learn to respond sensibly to risky situations. My friend's child, as far as I can tell, is a sensible boy. He's not an idiot but he needs to broaden his experience. My friend probably thinks I'm mad to let any child of mine go so far away from home. I think she's mad not to give him as many opportunities and experiences as possible, even if it means him being a long way from home.

Date posted: 10 Oct 2008

A Time to vote and a time not to vote

We have a local by-election going on tonight to elect a representative on the County Council. I voted. I always vote. Trouble is I didn't know who to vote for. Only two election campaign leaflets have dropped through our door this time round. One was the Conservatives and one was the BNP. No way on this planet I am going to vote for the BNP, not in this life nor any other. That left me with a choice of one. Actually the choice was, to vote or not to vote? I almost didn't.

It wasn't until I saw my polling card yesterday that I even remembered that there was an election today there's been so little fuss about it anywhere. I haven't seen a single poster, placard, or rosette and nobody has thought my vote was important enough to bother canvassing for it. Like Mum always used to say "if you don't ask you don't get" nobody asked so nobody got (almost).

In the end I did go and vote, I voted for a Conservative for the first time in rather more years than I want to think about. The last time I voted Conservative was in 1979. It was also the only time I voted in an election and my candidate actually won. At the back of my mind though, as well as the issue of people asking for my vote was the thought that whoever won would probably have to resign their seat on the local city council due to conflict of interest, so we might actually get a better one. So the candidate I voted for was the one I most wanted to get rid of.

Date posted: 09 Oct 2008

The Dreaded Lurgy Strikes

It's that time of year again. The cold germs are going mad and everybody is getting them. They laid waste to our family last week. We shared between us a particularly vicious virus that made everybody miss at least one day off work/school. Nasty. Luckily we are all getting back to normal now. Even more luckily for me the worst days I had were at the weekend, if they had happened during the week I would have had to miss work and if I don't work I don't get paid. Not that I am getting paid at the moment. The bozo organisation for whom I do a lot of supply work hasn't organised itself well enough to actually pay me for the work I did for them in September. If I hadn't been working for them then I would no doubt have been working elsewhere and they would have paid me. Surprising though it may seem there are some supply teaching agencies who not only find me work (I found my current contract myself) but also pay me for it. Now that kind of arrangement I can live with. Not getting paid stinks!

Date posted: 06 Oct 2008

I wonder

If it had been "Southern Rock" and the "Brighton and Bournemouth Building Society" in financial hot water, would the Government have been quite so quick to step in and nationalise? I also wonder how many shares The Bradford and Bingley Board of Directors held when it went under and when/if they unloaded them.

Date posted: 28 Sep 2008

You couldn't make this one up

Actually, you probably could. According to our government the future of our power supplies is nuclear. OK. I would tend to agree with them, it's cheap, it's clean for the people living nearby it doesn't generate lots of pollution, greenhouse gas or other nasties. There are no lorries or ships arriving throughout the day and night with supplies to keep it going. The people who live near Sizewell B apparently are quite content for another reactor to be built to replace it. OK getting rid of the waste products is an issue but given a few years somebody's bound to come up with something - especially if there's public and private funding going on.

So, what have they done? Sold our nuclear power industry to the French. While they may generate 75% of their own electricity by nuclear and have some expertise, the fact remains that they are French. Two points to consider, first hundreds of years of animosity. You can't change history. Second, what government hands over control of national assets to somebody over whom they have absolutely no control? If push comes to shove then EDF will sell the power to whomever they please, for the highest price they can get. If that isn't us then where are we going to get our power? Oil? Coal? Burning forests?

I don't generally hold with nationalised industry, the people running it tend to get sloppy and inefficient, but power production isn't your average industry, just like the water supply isn't. If they don't work properly we are, to put it bluntly, stuffed. To be even more blunt we die.

The water industries are still, more or less, under some control from the government, our power is now being controlled by the political and commercial whim of somebody who isn't answerable to us at all. If EDF decide not to build more power stations here or if their government decided to throw its weight around there isn't a darn thing anybody here can do apart from complain.

Date posted: 24 Sep 2008

We really don't need this

"Parents will be able to ask if someone close to their family is a sex offender under new pilot schemes in England.Under the measures, police will be able to tell families if someone with access to a child has convictions or has been previously suspected of abuse." This from the BBC website

Have we taken leave of our senses? It seems like it only takes one guilt-ridden parent to get the government to take away even more of any right to privacy we may have. I mean, look at it. Notice the bit that says "had previously been suspected of". This means that innocent people (and do I mean innocent since they haven't been convicted of anything and indeed they may not have been prosecuted because there was no evidence that they had done anything wrong) who come into contact with children can have other people going to the police and asking for information about them.

Imagine the case where little Timmy's parents have heard a rumour about somebody they see maybe at school or maybe walking their dog in the park or who is the parent of little Timmy's friend. So Timmy's parents go to the Police and say "This person has unsupervised contact with my child, please tell me about them" and the Police (who probably haven't got the time or resources to check that the person really does have access to little Timmy say "Oh yes Mr/Mrs X was suspected of having done something naughty to a child twenty years ago but nothing was proved and they were never charged with anything and the charges were withdrawn". Little Timmy's parents tell little Timmy not to go near Mr/Mrs X and even if they don't tell little Timmy why little Timmy makes a guess and tells his mate Johnny and Johnny tells his parents what Timmy's parents said and suddenly Mr/Mrs X gets beaten up because little Johnny's dad or mum says there's no smoke without fire and tells Janie's mum and she tells somebody else and somebody takes it into their own hands to "teach this pervert a lesson".

It's insane, it's dangerous, and it doesn't do one darn thing to keep our kids safer because it just makes it more likely that sex offenders and people who are a threat to the safety of our kids will just vanish from police and probation service radar and nobody will ever know who they are or where they are. People who have offical contact with kids (teachers, playleaders, people who run clubs and other activities for kids) are routinely checked for criminal offences. In my job I get checked for almost every new school I go to (at a cost of 36 quid each time somebody's making an awful lot of money out of this), it's a pain but it's necessary. Even so, an expired conviction (not that I have any convictions for anything, expired or not) doesn't automatically get you barred from formal contact with kids but as far as I can tell, once suspected of any kind of inappropriate contact with kids then always a "pervert" even when there's no proof, no evidence and no conviction.

If we really want to keep our kids safe then this isn't the way to do it.

Date posted: 15 Sep 2008

A definite improvement

Well the Proms is over for another year. We sat and listened then watched the Last Night with our customary bottle of champagne (actually it wasn't our customary bottle since that has become too expensive but another variety that was on special offer). No. 1 son was particularly disappointed at end of the season this year. He has really enjoyed all our involvement and has been asking about going to a lot more concerts. He plays flute and clarinet and is planning to learn other instruments as well. He's opted to do GCSE Music so is becoming more interested in the technical aspects of musical production. This means lots of questions, which isn't helpful when you are trying to listen to something, and is even less helpful when he's not sure how to ask the question that will get him the infomation he wants and I'm not sure I know the answer anyway. That was a bit more important during this year's Last Night because there was much less wasted time zooming around to this park and that park and talking to different presenters who can, in any case, barely be heard above the noise of the crowds. That's got to be an improvement.

We didn't get the Fantasia on British Sea Songs this year, which was a change but still a good programme. I particularly liked the Vaughan Williams and the new piece by Anna Meredith. Quite brave of the powers that be to include this in the second half of the Last Night, but worth it I thought. Of course we also had the magnificent Bryn Terfel and Sir Roger Norrington as well. We commented that they both seemed to be having a great time. We had a great time. For a first effort Roger Wright did a pretty darn good job so we look forward to more of the same next year. And do you know what? I haven't heard more than one person talk about it being "elitist", which is good, because anybody with any sense will know that a) it isn't and b) there's nothing wrong with elites anyway, because if there was, we wouldn't need to bother with the Olympics.

Date posted: 14 Sep 2008

Let's have a bit of perspective here

I am getting heartily fed up of the media calling sportspeople "heroes". It's a complete exaggeration, but I've given up hoping for anything more accurate, after all "well-rewarded, pampered, individuals pursuing their hobby at the public expense and doing what they are supposed to do" doesn't have quite the same impact does it?

Take Theo Walcott for example, the latest "hero" on the sporting scene. He is a footballer, he is extremely well paid for doing a job which he clearly enjoys. His job is to score goals and to work with the rest of the team to win matches. He does his job, he does his job well. But he's still only a person doing their job well. There are millions of people doing the same as he is, working and doing their jobs well. The huge majority get paid a lot less than he does, but they aren't classed as heroes, they are workers. Many people are working in jobs they don't even like much, but they still do it.

There are other people who really are heroes, people who put their lives on the line for the rest of us every time they go to work. Some of them risk their lives for us even when they aren't at work. At the moment I am thinking about our armed services especially those serving overseas. They can't just drive off home at the end of their shift, home is thousand of miles away. The people who are trying to kill them don't stop just because it's the end of the day. Our service personnel are heroes, and so are the people they leave behind when they go on a tour of duty.

Given the date, lots of people will be remembering those who lost their lives in or near the twin towers and in the other attacks in 2001. Quite apart from the horror of the whole thing there are lots of people who have direct links to those events. We have friends who work in central New York and other friends who work near the Pentagon we were worried for their safety but they were OK - though very much too close for comfort in both cases. There was a programme on TV last night about the Marriott Hotel at the World Trade Centre and the people who escaped and survived. One of those was a fireman and, however much he may protest, it's him and people like him who are the real heroes. Those fire officers and police officers must all have known that there was a real chance that they would die in the process of doing their job. But they went in there and did it anyway. Now that's true heroism.

Date posted: 11 Sep 2008

Why?

Lots of fuss here about the experiment they are starting in CERN today. The end of the world is nigh and all that, as well as people trying to explain the physics of it and how it's really very safe. One thing I haven't yet discovered from the coverage I have seen; why are they doing it? I mean, what's the point? I suspect it's the usual thing with men and bits of fancy equipment, they are doing it because they can. Given that at some point they will have had to justify the expense of setting the thing up, there must have been a reason given at some stage but I'd like to know what the reason is and why people think it's important. As far as I can see the only useful thing to have come out of that project is the World Wide Web and I rather suspect that Sir Tim would have come up with that wherever he worked. If we are all here tomorrow then maybe somebody will explain it. Maybe.

Date posted: 10 Sep 2008

Mum's Rules

Devised by me for the smooth running of the household and the continued survival of parents and offspring. They come in several sections.

When you get up

Take your tablets.
Get dressed - even if you aren't planning on going anywhere. Pajamas are not day clothes.
Brush your teeth and wash your face every day.
No playing games before school.
Eat breakfast.
If Mum says the kitchen's closed, then it's closed, and you have to get your own breakfast - no arguing.

When you get home from school

Take your school uniform OFF, fold it up neatly and put it where it won't get creased up or dirty (this means not on the floor).
Put your dirty shirt in the washing as soon as you take it off.
Unpack your bag and hand over any notes from school.
Put your lunch box in the kitchen.
No TV or games until homework is finished.
Do homework the day it is given, not the day before it is due in (unless they are the same).
First person home cooks dinner. See kitchen noticeboard to find out what it is you have to cook.

Before bed

Sort your school bag out for the next day (if you are going to school the next day).
Clean your teeth.
Turn off your computer.
If it's not a school day tomorrow turn your alarm clock OFF!
Make sure you have clean underwear ready for the morning.

At mealtimes

Come to the table fully dressed.
One fork full or one spoon full = one mouth full.
If you have food in your mouth keep your mouth closed. No talking, no putting more food in until your mouth is empty.
Chew!

At other times

Do not fight.
If what you are wearing is not good enough to answer the door in then it's not good enough to sit round at home in.
If you use the last one/bit of whatever it is - replace it, do not leave the empty container lying around.
If you get the last one/packet of whatever it is out from the cupboard or off the shelf - write it on the shopping list.
If you drop it, you pick it up.
If you got it out, you put it away.
If you turned it on, you turn it off (this applies especially to the bathroom light and the TV).
On the floor is not the same as "put away".
If you spill it, you clean it up (this includes stuff that myteriously gets on the floor when you are cooking).
Do not hit him (unless you are both kitted out in fencing gear and you are on the piste).
Keep out of your brother's bedroom.
If you cook something share it.
Don't eat the last one - it's Mum's.
If you aren't sure, ask someone.
If there's nobody around to ask then think what the normal answer might be if you did ask and do that. If in doubt, "No you can't" is the normal answer.
If Mum or Dad tell you to do (or stop doing) something, do it - now is good.
No poking fingers up your nose in public (regardless of how juicy the bogey is). Mum counts as public.
Keep all digits out of your mouth (this include toes).
No cooking when there are no adults in the house.
If Mum or Dad say it's your turn then it's your turn - even if it isn't.
Do not booby trap the downstairs toilet.
Put dirty clothes in the washing pile, if it's not in the washing pile it won't get washed.
Empty toilet roll inners go in the bin, not on top of the radiator.
Your bed, you make it.
Your decision. You live with it.

I think that covers most situations for our family but this is more a work in progress than a definitive list. It follows on from a guide for new Mums that some friends and I devised when our own babies (all born around the same time) were tiny.

Date posted: 04 Sep 2008

A Day in the life of a Supply Teacher

This is how it goes, drought to plenty. Remind me to get a "proper" job. Soon!

Yesterday I had no work to go to when term starts. Term starts tomorrow. I had contacted several people and they were all in the "we'll let you know" mode. Well, OK I could do with another few days off to clear the debris from the holidays. Maybe. I wasn't expecting anything this week. The rules say that a teacher can be off from school for 3 days before the school has to bring in a supply teacher so probably nobody will need cover until next week at the earliest.

Then this morning I got an email - can I do Friday at X College? I did the same thing last year, one day per week. This will be the same units as last year, but with a slight change to the syllabus due to an update and there's possibly an Introduction to Programming unit as well if there are enough students to make it viable. So yes, I'll do that. No problem.

About an hour after that I got another email, can I do Friday morning at Y College? Nope. Then it was can I do Thursday morning at Y? Well, I'd rather not because it's only a half day they are offering me and relatively low rates at that, so I suggest maybe late afternoon sessions on other days. At 6pm I get a call from a different department at Y College, can I do the Monday-Wednesday course I was doing last year, for the whole year? Yep. We'll haggle over pay later. I start tomorrow. I need to be there by about 8am to find out what I am teaching and to organise the room and resources and make sure I have supplies and equipment for the new students. I also have to get the Health and Safety stuff for the first session on what you can and can't do and when. I taught this course for about 6 weeks last year so I have at least a rough idea what to expect.

Then, about 90 minutes ago I got an email from the organising tutor at Z University where I do some assessment and tutoring, can I do some more tutoring and schools visits for them? Yep. They will let me know who and where next week.

I just applied for a part time (1 day per week permanent) at X College in a different department from the one I work for on Fridays (Teacher Education as opposed to Engineering) so if that comes off I will be working 4 different jobs (at least). Given the economic situation and all the doom and gloom going round about recessions and whatnot, the more work the better.

This isn't a great deal different from last year, so hopefully it will all mesh together. It keeps me on my toes if nothing else and the variety is good. It looks like the boys will be picking up more of their own stuff and not leaving it all to Mum. Time to institute a new version of "Mum's Rules".

Date posted: 02 Sep 2008

Thank You All

I want to pay tribute to the finest bunch of people to cross my path in a long time. I refer to the BBC Proms Team. All of them deserve at least three big cheers, but special praise for the people who organised and ran the Proms Family Orchestras. A magnificent bunch of really talented individuals who had the energy and enthusiasm to pull music from even the habitually fumble-fingered (me) and make it not only fun but also sound good.

This weekend saw the final session for the season. It was, as ever, enormous fun. No. 1 son and I trundled along there with our instruments and managed, by some fluke, to get a parking place almost outside the doors of the Royal College of Music. Not cheap to park there but still much cheaper to drive than go by public transport - even supposing I was prepared to lug a cello in a hard case on the train and then half across London - and assuming they'd let me on the bus with it anyway.

Some of the pieces we worked on today were familiar, based on things that had been done at previous Proms Family Orchestra sessions, but, as always, linked in some way to what was happening in the next or previous Prom. As is often the case there was a guest musician (sometimes there are several). Everybody had a great time (as usual). I am looking forward to hearing the recording on the BBC web site.

I still have the dugga-dugga theme running round in my brain (anybody who was there will know what I mean). At the end of the session everybody went their separate ways and vanished and it was suddenly all over until next year, which left No.1 son and I feeling a little deflated. We have had the regular excitement and "something to look forward to" for a few months and now it's all over until next year. So, many, many thanks to the team. To everybody who played and encouraged and conducted and showed us how it went. Special thanks from me to Thomas who was so patient with the cellists and who showed us what we couldn't always hear and who was always positive and encouraging. I promise I will practice more before next year. First I have to find a new cello teacher - I can't seem to keep one more than about 6 months, they keep retiring on me. Surely I can't be that bad.

Much praise to everybody for all their hard work. I can't think of a better way of spending my licence fees! I hope to see you all next year.

Date posted: 31 Aug 2008

Madonna Dressed as Lamb

I had the misfortune to see a video of one of Madonna's recent efforts. Mrs Ritchie doesn't improve with keeping does she? Worryingly she's the same age as I am (more or less) but she doesn't seem to have matured at all in the last 30 or so years. She may be a lot slimmer and fitter than I am but her skin's in no better shape. With all that throwing her legs around and suggestive writhing she is turning into a grotesque - it suggests nothing other than desperation. She isn't Peter Pan, how ever much she may try to convince herself. She reminds me of Norma Desmond more than anything else. Madonna may be ready for her close up - but we aren't.

Date posted: 30 Aug 2008

Simply Perfect

What I like about birthdays is that most people realise that I am practically impossible to buy for. I own more books than is totally reasonable - at the last count, which was a couple of years ago, we had over 4,000 books in this house and I have bought more than I have thrown out since (scarily, apart from the newest ones and the reference, they have all been read at least once and many of them more than once). I seldom buy clothes (I knit a lot), I don't do "girly" stuff and I have such weird (as in varied) musical tastes that nobody dares buy me CDs any more.

As a result I get a lot of tokens for my birthday. Book tokens and Amazon gift certificates mainly. Lovely. Half the fun is deciding what to buy with them and being able to spend them without feeling guilty that it's the food budget or the holiday budget that's being deprived and the money could be better spent (though other than essentials it's hard to see what it could be better spent on than books and music).

My birthday is in July (I may have mentioned it) so I had some Amazon certificates which I spent. Some on books to feed my knitting and crochet habit and the rest on CDs. I saw that Harry Christophers and the Sixteen have a CD of Palestrina and Allegri, with the Allegri Miserere. The Allegri is just fantastic. I was listening to it this evening while cooking dinner. Actually I wasn't listening while cooking dinner, all dinner activities stopped while I listened. It's just perfect. One of those pieces that make the hair on the back of your neck stand up and cause you to stop whatever you are doing just to listen. Amazing to think that a human voice can produce that sound.

There probably aren't many pieces that do that to me. The Elgar cello concerto, the Lux Aeterna from the Verdi Requiem, Rhapsody in Blue, the Bach cello suites and the Goldberg Variations and a few other pieces. To some extent it depends on what mood I am in and what I am doing as to what I will play and I often have music on the the car. Beethoven, Saint-Saens, Tchaikovski. Sometimes I even have the window down and the volume up. It must make a change for by-standers not to get blasted with hip-hop or whatever as I pass by.

Date posted: 29 Aug 2008

About Contact

Previous Posts by Subject

Previous Posts by Date

Links to other Sites

Diabetes UK

Last updated: 16 Nov 2008